Rule of law and democracy are both legal and political issues which have gained attention not only in Nigeria but world over. In general, both form the basis of advocacy of most international bodies or institutions, with the intention of sustaining and maintaining world peace.
The rule of law is a principle which provides that no person is above the law, that no one can be punished by the state except for a breach of the law, and that no one can be convicted of breaching the law except in the manner set forth by the law itself.
Before Taking the Application of Rule of Law in Nigeria by Government or Public officials there is a need for us to understand what Rule of Law :
According to the advanced learner oxford dictionary, rule of law is defined as the condition in which all members of the society, including its rulers, accept the authority of the law.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations defines the rule of law as:
A principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated; and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. It requires, as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency
Prominent Nigerian writer, EseMalemi, defines the rule of law as: the observance, application and supremacy of civil or regular laws as opposed to arbitrary laws and arbitrariness, martial law, emergency law or military rule. It is the law which is reasonable justiciable in a democratic society
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS’ DEFINTION:
In 1959, an international gathering of over 185 judges, lawyers, and law professors from over 53 countries, meeting in New Delhi and speaking as the International Commission of Jurists, made a declaration as to the fundamental principle of the rule of law. This was the Declaration of Delhi. They declared that the rule of law implies certain rights and freedoms, that it implies an independent judiciary, and that it implies social, economic and cultural conditions conducive to human dignity.
FEATURES OF RULE OF LAW :
1. Supremacy of Law
This is one of the most important features of rule of law in democratic state. This suggest the fact that the law of the land must be made to be supreme and above every persons irrespective of their status. All persons (individuals, institutions and government) subject to law.
2. Equality Before the Law
The concept of equality before the law is pertinent to the free operation of the doctrine of rule of law. By this, it suggests that justice demands all parties be treated equally and not one favoured above others.
ADVANTAGES OF RULE OF LAW:
1. Rule of law also promotes justice. This is because rule of law promotes access to legal facilities and requires the due process of law in determining disputes between parties
2. it guarantees and protects the fundamental human rights of citizens. This implies that every individual is regarded as having certain rights which must not be infringed upon by other individuals or public officials
LIMITATIONS OF RULE OF LAW:
1) Immunity: Immunity is the special right granted to certain individuals in position of authority which shield them from prosecution while in office regardless of the offence committed. Such people are diplomats, presidents and governors. This is a limitation against the rule of law.
2) Administrative Tribunal: They are set up in some countries to try erring public officers. While ordinary citizens are tried in the ordinary courts.
SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEMS OF RULE OF LAW:
A. The supremacy of rule of law ensures no person can claim to be above law.
B. It ensures adherence of principles of natural justice like: giving reasonable opportunity, impartiality of decision, etc.
APPLICATION OF RULE LAW BY:
1. LEGISLATURES
2. EXECUTIVE
3. JUDICIARY
1. BY LEGISLATURE IN NIGERIA:
Under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Fepublic of Nigeria, particularly under section 4, it is provided thus:
(1) The legislative powers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be vested in a National Assembly for the Federation, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.
(2) The National Assembly shall have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Federation or any part thereof with respect to any matter included in the Exclusive Legislative List set out in Part I of the Second Schedule to this Constitution.
(3) The power of the National Assembly to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Federation with respect to any matter included in the Exclusive Legislative List shall, save as otherwise provided in this Constitution, be to the exclusion of the Houses of Assembly of States.
(4) In addition and without prejudice to the powers conferred by subsection (2) of this section, the National Assembly shall have power to make laws with respect to the following matters, that is to say:-
(a) Any matter in the Concurrent Legislative List set out in the first column of Part II of the Second Schedule to this
Constitution to the extent prescribed in the second column opposite thereto; and
(b) Any other matter with respect to which it is empowered to make laws in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.
(6) The legislative powers of a State of the Federation shall be vested in the House of Assembly of the State.
From the above provisions of the Constitution, it is apparent that the legislative power of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is vested in the National Assembly, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives; while that of the States of the Federation, is vested on the various Houses of Assembly of the States in the Federation. The legislative power of the National Assembly consists of the power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Federation or any part thereof with respect to any matter included in the Exclusive Legislative List set out in Part I of the Second Schedule to the Constitution, to the exclusion of the House of Assembly of States. And to make laws with respect to any matter in the Concurrent Legislative List set out in the first column of Part II of the Second Schedule to the Constitution to the extent prescribed in the Second Column; and with respect to any other matter with respect to which it is empowered to make laws in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. So also the Houses of Assembly of States of the Federation are to exercise their legislative functions as provided in the Constitution
As democracy is essential to the existence of rule of law, so also constitutionalism important in order to proclaim any effectiveness of the operation of rule of law in any given state.; therefore, the oversight function of the Nigerian legislature on the executive arm of government clearly demonstrated a positive legislative impact on the furtherance of the operation of the rule of law; provided it is constitutionally done (as an essential legislative role in the practice of separation of powers) and constitutionalism (as requiring that government be conducted through constitutionally established institutions and impersonal bureaucratic procedures and processes) .This is because, the legislative oversight functions, for a sustainable and virile democracy, is also inherently subsumed in the discharge of its law-making and policy formulation functions, especially where such legislations are initiated as executive bills.
The independence, and check of the National Assembly on the executive arm, to better strengthen rule of law in Nigeria, during the administration under review, was most evident in its exercise of legislative power to thwart the tenure extension attempt of President Obasanjo proposed in the form of, constitutional reforms and amendments. As such, the legislature’s support for rule of law in Nigeria, during the years under examination in this study was remarkable.
In the same eight years of democracy experience which its rule of law is under examination in this study, the state legislatures unconstitutionally removed governors. The extreme example of this was the removal of the then Oyo state Governor, who was impeached by a faction of the legislature, and even when the impeachment of the Governor was invalidated by the Supreme Court, the legislature never functioned as an arm of government.
2. By EXECUTIVE IN NIGERIA:
The executive arm of government, being the second important organ of government necessary for the promotion of rule of law in a state, has its authority from the provision of Section 5 of the constitution which provides that:
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive powers of the Federation:
(a) Shall be vested in the President and may subject as aforesaid and to the provisions of any law made by the National Assembly, be exercised by him either directly or through the Vice-President and Ministers of the Government of the Federation or officers in the public service of the Federation; and
(b) Shall extend to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, all laws made by the National Assembly and to all matters with respect to which the National Assembly has, for the time being, power to make laws.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive powers of a State:
(a) Shall be vested in the Governor of that State and may, subject as aforesaid and to the provisions of any Law made by a House of Assembly, be exercised by him either directly or through the Deputy Governor and Commissioners of the Government of that State or officers in the public service of the State; and
(b) Shall extend to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, all laws made by the House of Assembly of the State and to all matters with respect to which the House of Assembly has for the time being power to make laws.
From the above provision of the constitution, it is revealed that the constitutional responsibility or quota of the executive arm to the promotion of rule of law in Nigeria is by adhering strictly to its constitutional duty of executing and maintaining the provision of the constitution, all laws made by the National Assembly and all matters with respect to which the National Assembly has, for the time being, power to make.
One of the most impressive move made by the Executive President of Nigeria during the years under review in this study which could be termed to be in favour of the rule of law was that, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo as a serving President was summoned and he appeared before the Justice Oputa Commission of Inquiry. This pointed to the fact that he also believed that no one is above the law. This is the rule of law.
Unfortunately, during the administration under critique, instead of the executive arm concentrating on its constitutional roles, was found being involved in so many unconstitutional acts; the result of which, offended the rule of law in Nigeria. Firstly, it was in Nigeria that the President without the authority of the National Assembly or the judiciary ordered that the military to deal with some sections of the Nigerian community. This occurred in Odi village in the year 2000/2001; villagers were attacked and many of them were killed on the account of the president’s order. The most painful thing on this was that, No member of the military has been prosecuted for their participation in this action up till date.
So also in 2001 and 2002, a similar thing occurred where the Tiv people of Gbeji, Ukum and katsina-Ala were killed just by the orders of the president. No matter the offence committed by these communities, in a state which claimed to have rule of law and constitution, the president ought not to do so.
Also, Lagosians can never forget the hardship they suffered in 2005 and 2006 because of the refusal of the president to release the Lagos state statutory allocation despite the court judgement in favour of Lagos state government. This was total lack of respect for rule of law and the constitution by the executive arm.
Furthermore, the law enforcement agencies did not help matters during the years under review. Any attempt of the citizens claiming their rights was an accelerated attempt to one’s grave. The killing of six young men in Apo village of Abuja by the police in 2006 was a clear example. The only offence committed by them was that they were exercising their fundamental right of freedom of expression by asking the police questions. This was total conflict to rule of law.
The President, from 2002 to 2007, catapulted Mr. Nuhu Ribadu, the then EFCC chairman, from the rank of a chief superintendent of police to an Assistant Inspector General of police. A promotion which was later discovered to be irregular and unconstitutional; and the said promotion with about 139 other police officers irregularly promoted were later reversed. All these and many others are the deeds of the executive arm of government during the administration under examination in this study.
3. BY JUDICIARY IN NIGERIA:
According to section 6(1) which provides that:
The judicial powers of the Federation shall be vested in the courts to which this section relates, being courts established for the Federation.
Owing to the foregoing, it was not surprising that since transition to civil rule in 1999, the courts in question, played a much more pronounced and critical roles in settling varieties of disputes and becoming a bulwark for constitutional democracy and guarantee of fundamental rights, a characteristic feature of rule of law. During the administration under critique, the judiciary really served in the name Nigerians labeled it as the ‘last hope of the common man’ in furtherance of rule of law in Nigeria.
The question now is-How has the judiciary faired in driving Nigeria along the part of rule of law under democratic dispensation under study? The answer to the question is not farfetched; the courts, during the administration under review, in ensuring chronicle, demonstrated the uncommon zeal of the judiciary in leading the charge against every form of arbitrariness; particularly the Supreme Court which lately acted with so many spines, quite unlike the military days when the judiciary was treated with contempt.
A case in point is the Supreme Court judgment of 25 October 2007 which led to the emergence of Rotimi Amaechi as the new Governor of Rivers State. The well known facts are that Rotimi won the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) gubernatorial primaries of the state and his name subsequently sent to INEC. But typical of the manipulation process of enemies of democracy and rule of law, Rotimi's name was replaced with the name of Celestine Omeha who never participated in the primaries.
Pending the determination of successive suits and counter suits, coupled with the judicial bottlenecks and clogs in the wheel, the elections were held and Celestine Omehia returned as Governor. The most cogent point of law, according to the legal pundits was that the PDP acted in contravention of Section 34(1) and (2) of the Electoral Act 2006, which requires a political party seeking to change a candidate to give cogent and verifiable reasons to INEC. The only reason giving by PDP was “error”. The Supreme Court of seven justices, in its omnipotent reasoning, presided over by Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu who read the judgment; held inter alia:
The court has the right to grant reliefs to do substantial justice without regard to technicalities. The only way to ensure that his rights are restored is to declare that he (Amaechi), not the 2 respondent (Omehia) must be deemed to have won election.
The judiciary, during the administration under review, displayed its role of ‘The hope of common man’ through settling of various disputes involving fundamental human rights. The courts, in most of these cases, ensured that the rights of the litigants are constitutionally protected against any form of arbitrariness on the part of other organs or persons. This marked the great contributions of the judiciary to the effectiveness of rule of law in Nigeria during the administration under review.
Others:
1. Anti-Corruption Efforts: The rule of law is essential in combating corruption within the government. Agencies like the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) are empowered to investigate and prosecute cases of corruption involving public officials. High-profile cases, such as the prosecution of former governors for misappropriation of funds, demonstrate the commitment to holding government officials accountable under the law.
2. Constitutional Checks and Balances: Nigeria's constitution establishes a system of checks and balances among the branches of government. The National Assembly, for instance, has the power to approve appointments and ratify treaties made by the executive branch. The judiciary can review the constitutionality of government actions, ensuring that officials operate within their constitutional limits.
3. Judicial Independence: The rule of law depends on a judiciary that is independent from the influence of other branches of government. In Nigeria, the judiciary is tasked with interpreting and applying the law impartially. The landmark case of Amaechi v. INEC (2007) affirmed the principle that even a sitting governor is not immune from legal actions.
4. Human Rights Protection: The rule of law safeguards citizens' human rights. The case of SERAP v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2016) illustrates how NGOs and citizens can use the courts to challenge violations of human rights, such as unlawful arrests or detentions by government officials or agencies.
5. Public Procurement Laws: Public officials are bound by laws governing public procurement. The Public Procurement Act establishes transparent procedures for government procurement to prevent favoritism and corruption. Violations can lead to legal consequences, ensuring fair competition and proper use of public funds.
CONCLUSION:
The importance of rule of law to democracy as a major tool used in determining the extent to which a particular government is democratic, transparent, accountable and legitimate cannot be over emphasized,that is why rule of law is the bedrock or basis upon which good governance is based in a democratic state.
the organs of government made both positive and negative impacts on the furtherance and effectiveness of rule of law in Nigeria over the times. But if Rule of Law will be effectively manage and obeyed the country will be orderly and experience growth.
Reference :
ARTICLES ON THE INTERNET
• Adekilekun M.T, ‘An Appraisal of The Supreme Court Decision In Inakoju Vs Adeleke And Its Impact On Political Stability In Nigeria’ http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/publications/adekilekunmt/INAKOJU.pdf accessed on 27 July, 2011.
• Ayo O, ’The Bar And The Bench In Defence Of Rule Of Law In Nigeria’ <http:www.getcited.org/pub/103137590> accessed on 15 May 2011.
Buzzle.com ‘advantages and disadvantages of democracy’<http://www.buzzle.com/article/democracy/>accessed on 6 July, 2011.
• Churchill O, ‘Imprisonment of Press Freedom in Nigerian’ <http://focusnigeria.com/press-freedom-nigeria.htm > accessed on 22 July 2011.
• Clean foundation, ‘Opportunity For Justice’ < http://www.cleen.org/apo%20killing.pdf> accessed on 28 July 2011.
BOOKS
• Aguda T. A, The Judiciary in the government of Nigeria (New Horn Press, Ibadan 1983).
Agudu, A, ‘The Crisis of Justice’ (Eresu Hills Publication, Akure, 1986) .
• Anyaele J.U, Comprehensive Government For Senior Secondary School (A Johnson Publishers Ltd. Lagos, 2003).
• Ayo Olutokun et al, The Media and Democratic Rule in Nigeria (Vol. XIII, No 3, Development Policy Management Network, Addis, Abeba - Ethiopia 2001).
• Dibie C.C., Essential Government for Senior Secondary Schools (3rd ed. Tonad Publishers Ltd., Lagos 2008).
